NC Science Blogging 2008: Ethics

One of the first discussions of the Science Blogging 2008 meeting concerned …

One problem that I ran across during the day was picking just which sessions to attend; there were at least two in each timeslot that looked interesting, but since I'm not a quantum particle, I could only pick one. First up was a discussion of science blogging ethics, led by Dr. Janet Stemwedel. The discussion looked at both bloggers' ethical responsibilities, as well as those of the reader.

I'll sum up some of the points that came up, along with my views, and hopefully the discussion that follows will be useful both to you, the reader, and to me and my fellow Nobel Intent writers.

Obviously, from where I am, the number one ethical concern is that what we write is accurate and doesn't misrepresent the facts. It's something we feel quite strongly about at Nobel Intent; too often, coverage of science news involves people taking press releases and rewriting them, with the PR spin intact. To that end, when it comes to covering peer-reviewed research, we always start off with the original research article. Sure, it takes longer to read than a press release, and sometimes involves spending an hour or two in PubMed going back through the preceding literature to get up to speed, but it also means that it's possible to see things in the research that might not have been highlighted by other coverage but are just as interesting. We're also not the only people who feel that way.

Linking you, the reader, back to that original source is also something we consider a responsibility, and it gives you the opportunity to keep us honest. Beyond that, we have other ethical concerns, such as not breaking embargos, and speaking up when we have conflicts of interest and the like, although I think here at Nobel Intent we're pretty good at that.

Some of the other concerns that were highlighted were a bit less applicable to us here at Nobel Intent, but certainly apply to other science blogs, such as writing under pseudonyms and how that affects the perceptions of the readers. That's not to say that writing under a pseudonym is bad, since there are plenty of good reasons why someone might choose that path, often due to their relationship with their employers, but it can obfuscate a writer's credentials or authority to speak on a subject. You can also read another participant's take on the session at HASTAC.

Finally, there are the reader's responsibilities: to evaluate the sources they read, to challenge statements they know are misleading or wrong, and so on. Of course, I may well be leaving some out: I'd be very interested in hearing from any of you what other responsibilities you think readers have to the sites they read.